Recommended Posts

IntroductionWith recent talk of console optimisations a lot of people have been confused and everything has kind of been thrown into turmoil. A lot of people have been wondering how the new console optimisation will effect them, if their i5 or i7 will no longer be sufficient for gaming and if thier i5 or i7 will decrease in game performance.

As you all know the Playstation 4 and Xbox One will both contain 8 core APUs to drive the consoles, because of this developers are going to be forced to optimise their games to utilise these cores, the result of this is that we as PC users will receive performance increases in games as a lot of games aren't using full utilising the cores on Core 2 Duos let alone the 8 cores found on the AMD processors. If you could have a chance to look at the source code for games most of them aren't truly multi-threaded (I will be explaining this further down the line).

Both Microsoft and Sony have gone down the path of having a more cores but having them run slower, because of this developers can not run games just on one core because the single cores are simply not running fast enough to be able to run everything unlike i5s or other AMD CPUs. Since ordinary computers do have the power to run games when they are not multi-threaded once games do become multi-threaded we will get large increases in performance for games that have a certain level of CPU requirement (a good example of this is Skyrim albeit with mods it becomes more obvious, it's still a good example).

Multi-threading is the act of having a program run and utilise on multiple threads (not to be confused with cores, yet :P ), this can greatly improve the performance and speed of a program. I've written up a random bit of math in javascript to show you how it works that I will attach to this post.

Hyper-threading was an amazing innovation by Intel, it is the use of one core to do things simultaneously by creating a logical thread from the already existing physical thread, however this only works for tasks that do not require the power of the entire core to run; in short, it will not help in gaming because gaming saturates the core by being one large process in comparison the many small processes like in a server.

Hyper-threading is so amazing because you can cut down power consumption by reducing the number of physical cores while not reducing the number of threads allowing for the same amount of parallel computing. For example a dual core i3 vs a quad core i5, because the i3 has hyper-threading they can do the same amount of tasks at the same time while the i3 is cheaper and uses less power because it has less cores. If you were to get an i7 and clock it to the same as an i3 and disable 2 of the cores they would perform equally.

Hyper-threading is particularly useful in the case of mobile computing, it allows cpus to have very very low power consumption while still having a lot of power (for example my i5 2415m has a TDP of 35W while having 2 cores hyper-threaded). In mobile CPUs i3s, i5s and i7s all have hyper-threading and their main differentiating factors are the amount of cores and the clock speed.

As amazing as hyper-threading is it has its limitations because in tasks that saturate the core it is pretty much void because it can't magically increase the performance of the core, the core has its limitations and all hyper-threading does is allow it to do two things at once.

Depending on the CPU you have the console optimisations will have an effect of different magnitude, for those of you that understand things better through visualisation here's a chart to help you:That chart above is not based on any real information it's just there to help your visualise what the performance increase would look like with perfect scaling :P (The best way to find out is to run Cinebench 11.5 run the CPU and CPU(Single Core) tests and look at your MP Ratio).

I could type an entire topic just on this question but in short, the MP Ratio for an 8350 is around 6x which means that using all 8 cores it performs 6x as well as it does using 1 core. The MP Ratio for a 3570k is 4x which means that using all 4 cores it performs 4x as well as it does using 1 core. Intel CPUs generally have an MP ratio closer to the actual core count while AMD FX processors usually has an MP ratio 2/3 of the actual core count. This is not true for Phenom etc. however.

Update: I have now done an entire thread regarding this so check it out here

ConclusionI hope this has helped clear up any concerns you might have about the up coming optimisations.These optimisations will not be instantaneous but will most likely happen over an extended period of time so don't expect your performance to sky rocket all of a sudden :P .

If you feel like I've missed anything please feel free to PM me and I'll be sure to add it ^_^

P.S.

I just thought I should stress to you guys just how much the MP Ratio matters in how this will effect you. It doesn't matter if your processor has 8 cores and the MP ratio is 6 then you're only going to get a benefit as if you had 6 cores ^_^ just thought I'd add that as a side note.

Oh right and the 6350 has an MP ratio of 4x so the 6350 and 4670k? They will receive the same bonus' so this is not only for AMD :D .

Link to post

Share on other sites

With recent talk of console optimisations a lot of people have been confused and everything has kind of been thrown into turmoil. A lot of people have been wondering how the new console optimisation will effect them, if their i5 or i7 will no longer be sufficient for gaming and if thier i5 or i7 will decrease in game performance.

What exactly are the console optimisations?

As you all know the Playstation 4 and Xbox One will both contain 8 core APUs to drive the consoles, because of this developers are going to be forced to optimise their games to utilise these cores, the result of this is that we as PC users will receive performance increases in games as a lot of games aren't using full utilising the cores on Core 2 Duos let alone the 8 cores found on the AMD processors. If you could have a chance to look at the source code for games most of them aren't truly multi-threaded (I will be explaining this further down the line).

Both Microsoft and Sony have gone down the path of having a more cores but having them run slower, because of this developers can not run games just on one core because the single cores are simply not running fast enough to be able to run everything unlike i5s or other AMD CPUs. Since ordinary computers do have the power to run games when they are not multi-threaded once games do become multi-threaded we will get large increases in performance for games that have a certain level of CPU requirement (a good example of this is Skyrim albeit with mods it becomes more obvious, it's still a good example).

What is multi-threading?

Multi-threading is the act of having a program run and utilise on multiple threads (not to be confused with cores, yet :P ), this can greatly improve the performance and speed of a program. I've written up a random bit of math in javascript to show you how it works that I will attach to this post.

What is hyper-threading?

Hyper-threading was an amazing innovation by Intel, it is the use of one core to do things simultaneously by creating a logical thread from the already existing physical thread, however this only works for tasks that do not require the power of the entire core to run; in short, it will not help in gaming because gaming saturates the core by being one large process in comparison the many small processes like in a server.

Why use hyper-threading instead of more cores?

Hyper-threading is so amazing because you can cut down power consumption by reducing the number of physical cores while not reducing the number of threads allowing for the same amount of parallel computing. For example a dual core i3 vs a quad core i5, because the i3 has hyper-threading they can do the same amount of tasks at the same time while the i3 is cheaper and uses less power because it has less cores. If you were to get an i7 and clock it to the same as an i3 and disable 2 of the cores they would perform equally.

Hyper-threading is particularly useful in the case of mobile computing, it allows cpus to have very very low power consumption while still having a lot of power (for example my i5 2415m has a TDP of 35W while having 2 cores hyper-threaded). In mobile CPUs i3s, i5s and i7s all have hyper-threading and their main differentiating factors are the amount of cores and the clock speed.

Why use cores instead of hyper-threading?

As amazing as hyper-threading is it has its limitations because in tasks that saturate the core it is pretty much void because it can't magically increase the performance of the core, the core has its limitations and all hyper-threading does is allow it to do two things at once.

Introduction

With recent talk of console optimisations a lot of people have been confused and everything has kind of been thrown into turmoil. A lot of people have been wondering how the new console optimisation will effect them, if their i5 or i7 will no longer be sufficient for gaming and if thier i5 or i7 will decrease in game performance.

What exactly are the console optimisations?

As you all know the Playstation 4 and Xbox One will both contain 8 core APUs to drive the consoles, because of this developers are going to be forced to optimise their games to utilise these cores, the result of this is that we as PC users will receive performance increases in games as a lot of games aren't using full utilising the cores on Core 2 Duos let alone the 8 cores found on the AMD processors. If you could have a chance to look at the source code for games most of them aren't truly multi-threaded (I will be explaining this further down the line).

Both Microsoft and Sony have gone down the path of having a more cores but having them run slower, because of this developers can not run games just on one core because the single cores are simply not running fast enough to be able to run everything unlike i5s or other AMD CPUs. Since ordinary computers do have the power to run games when they are not multi-threaded once games do become multi-threaded we will get large increases in performance for games that have a certain level of CPU requirement (a good example of this is Skyrim albeit with mods it becomes more obvious, it's still a good example).

What is multi-threading?

Multi-threading is the act of having a program run and utilise on multiple threads (not to be confused with cores, yet :P ), this can greatly improve the performance and speed of a program. I've written up a random bit of math in javascript to show you how it works that I will attach to this post.

What is hyper-threading?

Hyper-threading was an amazing innovation by Intel, it is the use of one core to do things simultaneously by creating a logical thread from the already existing physical thread, however this only works for tasks that do not require the power of the entire core to run; in short, it will not help in gaming because gaming saturates the core by being one large process in comparison the many small processes like in a server.

Why use hyper-threading instead of more cores?

Hyper-threading is so amazing because you can cut down power consumption by reducing the number of physical cores while not reducing the number of threads allowing for the same amount of parallel computing. For example a dual core i3 vs a quad core i5, because the i3 has hyper-threading they can do the same amount of tasks at the same time while the i3 is cheaper and uses less power because it has less cores. If you were to get an i7 and clock it to the same as an i3 and disable 2 of the cores they would perform equally.

Hyper-threading is particularly useful in the case of mobile computing, it allows cpus to have very very low power consumption while still having a lot of power (for example my i5 2415m has a TDP of 35W while having 2 cores hyper-threaded). In mobile CPUs i3s, i5s and i7s all have hyper-threading and their main differentiating factors are the amount of cores and the clock speed.

What does all this mean to me?

Depending on the CPU you have the console optimisations will have an effect of different magnitude, for those of you that understand things better through visualisation here's a chart to help you:

That chart above is not based on any real information it's just there to help your visualise what the performance increase would look like with perfect scaling :P (The best way to find out is to run Cinebench 11.5 run the CPU and CPU(Single Core) tests and look at your MP Ratio).

Conclusion

I hope this has helped clear up any concerns you might have about the up coming optimisations.

These optimisations will not be instantaneous but will most likely happen over an extended period of time so don't expect your performance to sky rocket all of a sudden :P .

If you feel like I've missed anything please feel free to PM me and I'll be sure to add it ^_^

Couple of things:

1. You messed up in the editing process, as everything from Introduction to "Why use hyper-threading..." is repeated. 2. Put each section in spoilers. It removes the "wall of text" effect. 3. Good post. I suggest mentioning how AMD cores =/= Intel cores in all applications except where games are optimized for AMD. That's when AMD cores may as well be treated as whole cores, but no where else.

1. You messed up in the editing process, as everything from Introduction to "Why use hyper-threading..." is repeated.

2. Put each section in spoilers. It removes the "wall of text" effect.

3. Good post. I suggest mentioning how AMD cores =/= Intel cores (since you use a chart denoting "how many cores you have", that would be important, I think, just remember that it is indeed optimized for AMD).

But yeah...

Wall of Text crits Vitalius for 9999 damage.

Vitalius fainted.

Thanks fixed the repeat in the middle :p that was due to me losing my work half way through twice ._. in the backup process I seem to have accidentally pasted at some point instead of copying.

I'll put in some spoilers to compress this as reading through it is a real wall of text xD

Link to post

Share on other sites

With recent talk of console optimisations a lot of people have been confused and everything has kind of been thrown into turmoil. A lot of people have been wondering how the new console optimisation will effect them, if their i5 or i7 will no longer be sufficient for gaming and if thier i5 or i7 will decrease in game performance.

As you all know the Playstation 4 and Xbox One will both contain 8 core APUs to drive the consoles, because of this developers are going to be forced to optimise their games to utilise these cores, the result of this is that we as PC users will receive performance increases in games as a lot of games aren't using full utilising the cores on Core 2 Duos let alone the 8 cores found on the AMD processors. If you could have a chance to look at the source code for games most of them aren't truly multi-threaded (I will be explaining this further down the line).

Both Microsoft and Sony have gone down the path of having a more cores but having them run slower, because of this developers can not run games just on one core because the single cores are simply not running fast enough to be able to run everything unlike i5s or other AMD CPUs. Since ordinary computers do have the power to run games when they are not multi-threaded once games do become multi-threaded we will get large increases in performance for games that have a certain level of CPU requirement (a good example of this is Skyrim albeit with mods it becomes more obvious, it's still a good example).

Multi-threading is the act of having a program run and utilise on multiple threads (not to be confused with cores, yet :P ), this can greatly improve the performance and speed of a program. I've written up a random bit of math in javascript to show you how it works that I will attach to this post.

Hyper-threading was an amazing innovation by Intel, it is the use of one core to do things simultaneously by creating a logical thread from the already existing physical thread, however this only works for tasks that do not require the power of the entire core to run; in short, it will not help in gaming because gaming saturates the core by being one large process in comparison the many small processes like in a server.

Hyper-threading is so amazing because you can cut down power consumption by reducing the number of physical cores while not reducing the number of threads allowing for the same amount of parallel computing. For example a dual core i3 vs a quad core i5, because the i3 has hyper-threading they can do the same amount of tasks at the same time while the i3 is cheaper and uses less power because it has less cores. If you were to get an i7 and clock it to the same as an i3 and disable 2 of the cores they would perform equally.

Hyper-threading is particularly useful in the case of mobile computing, it allows cpus to have very very low power consumption while still having a lot of power (for example my i5 2415m has a TDP of 35W while having 2 cores hyper-threaded). In mobile CPUs i3s, i5s and i7s all have hyper-threading and their main differentiating factors are the amount of cores and the clock speed.

As amazing as hyper-threading is it has its limitations because in tasks that saturate the core it is pretty much void because it can't magically increase the performance of the core, the core has its limitations and all hyper-threading does is allow it to do two things at once.

Depending on the CPU you have the console optimisations will have an effect of different magnitude, for those of you that understand things better through visualisation here's a chart to help you:

That chart above is not based on any real information it's just there to help your visualise what the performance increase would look like with perfect scaling :P (The best way to find out is to run Cinebench 11.5 run the CPU and CPU(Single Core) tests and look at your MP Ratio).

I could type an entire topic just on this question but in short, the MP Ratio for an 8350 is around 6x which means that using all 8 cores it performs 6x as well as it does using 1 core. The MP Ratio for a 3570k is 4x which means that using all 4 cores it performs 4x as well as it does using 1 core. Intel CPUs generally have an MP ratio closer to the actual core count while AMD usually has an MP ratio 2/3 of the actual core count.

Conclusion

I hope this has helped clear up any concerns you might have about the up coming optimisations.

These optimisations will not be instantaneous but will most likely happen over an extended period of time so don't expect your performance to sky rocket all of a sudden :P .

If you feel like I've missed anything please feel free to PM me and I'll be sure to add it ^_^

Very informative, though I doubt it won't make much a difference to Intel, should help out AMD though. Hopefully more programs and games will become multicore aware.

If you think that's a wall of text, you'd probably probably think I'd write shelves leading to the 9th layer if I didn't tl;dr every and post I've made on here.

Couple of things:

1. You messed up in the editing process, as everything from Introduction to "Why use hyper-threading..." is repeated.

2. Put each section in spoilers. It removes the "wall of text" effect.

3. Good post. I suggest mentioning how AMD cores =/= Intel cores in all applications except where games are optimized for AMD. That's when AMD cores may as well be treated as whole cores, but no where else.

Link to post

Share on other sites

Just to clarify, MP Ratio stands for Multi-Processor ratio. This is used to measure the performance of a multi-core processor relative to the performance of a single-core processor of exactly the same architecture and frequency.It basically tells you how efficiently the multiple cores in the processor are communicating & how much performance is gained by the extra cores.

The modular architecture of current AMD FX CPUs and A series APUs uses intelligent sharing of resources between each pair of cores in a module to save die space.The savings in die space are meant to be used to accommodate larger GPUs in APUs.

The MP Ratio of AMD CPUs is actually pretty much the same as Intel ones, because it is measured slightly differently, instead of measuring the performance gained by the extra cores, we measure the performance gained by the extra modules.

In this case a Quad Module (8 core) AMD Processor will have an MP Ratio of 4 to 4.

However, the MP Ratio within the dual core module itself would be 2 to 1.7.

Because the shared resources will not allow the cores to execute at their fullest potential, this is meant to be addressed with the upcoming Steamroller architecture, and it's only possible with Steamroller because it's 28nm (Current versions are 32nm) and the nanometer shrink will provide the necessary die-space to reduce the amount of resource-sharing between the cores within the same module.

Link to post

Share on other sites

Just to clarify, MP Ratio stands for Multi-Processor ratio. This is used to measure the performance of a multi-core processor relative to the performance of a single-core processor of exactly the same architecture and frequency.

It basically tells you how efficiently the multiple cores in the processor are communicating & how much performance is gained by the extra cores.

The modular architecture of current AMD FX CPUs and A series APUs uses intelligent sharing of resources between each pair of cores in a module to save die space.

The savings in die space are meant to be used to accommodate larger GPUs in APUs.

The MP Ratio of AMD CPUs is actually pretty much the same as Intel ones, because it is measured slightly differently, instead of measuring the performance gained by the extra cores, we measure the performance gained by the extra modules.

In this case a Quad Module (8 core) AMD Processor will have an MP Ratio of 4 to 4.

However, the MP Ratio within the dual core module itself would be 2 to 1.7.

Because the shared resources will not allow the cores to execute at their fullest potential, this is meant to be addressed with the upcoming Steamroller architecture, and it's only possible with Steamroller because it's 28nm (Current versions are 32nm) and the nanometer shrink will provide the necessary die-space to reduce the mount of resource-sharing between the cores within the same module.

That's kind of irrelevant... I know the difference between cores and modules and this thread is supposed to be as simplified as I could make it else it could have been a way bigger wall of text :/ . The easiest way I have discovered for explaining how 2 cores within 1 module is describing it as a core is a square, a module is a rectangle containing the two squares and the two squares share resources.

Anyway back on topic, the MP ratio of AMD processors is usually 2/3 of the core count O.o idk why you mentioned the architecture at all...

Link to post

Share on other sites

Anyway back on topic, the MP ratio of AMD processors is usually 2/3 of the core count O.o idk why you mentioned the architecture at all...

Because this statement "the MP ratio of AMD processors is usually 2/3 of the core count" only applies to the modular architecture of Bulldozer & Piledriver, and is incorrect for any previous architectures such as Phenom II.

And the actual MP ratio for the current FX series is MPR = 0.85 X nCores , so it's significantly more than 2/3.

Link to post

Share on other sites

Because this statement "the MP ratio of AMD processors is usually 2/3 of the core count" only applies to the modular architecture of Bulldozer & Piledriver, and is incorrect for any previous architectures such as Phenom II.

True I'll have to revise that >_< you should have said instead of just giving information

Link to post

Share on other sites

Because this statement "the MP ratio of AMD processors is usually 2/3 of the core count" only applies to the modular architecture of Bulldozer & Piledriver, and is incorrect for any previous architectures such as Phenom II.

And the actual MP ratio for the current FX series is MPR = 0.85 X nCores , so it's significantly more than 2/3.

Where MPR = MP Ratio & nCores = Number of CPU Cores.

This might be irrelevant but on my Phenom 2 1090T on cinebench single core, it would get around 0.91 and single core on a 4770k is 1.85 ( i know its much older and all that but yeah double performance if you compare single core performance )

Link to post

Share on other sites

This might be irrelevant but on my Phenom 2 1090T on cinebench single core, it would get around 0.91 and single core on a 4770k is 1.85 ( i know its much older and all that but yeah double performance if you compare single core performance )

A top of the line Intel processor from the same sort of Phenom II generation (i7 960) scores 1.23, so your score is not bad at all.

Link to post

Share on other sites

If you think that's a wall of text, you'd probably probably think I'd write shelves leading to the 9th layer if I didn't tl;dr every and post I've made on here.

It was more so a joke. I usually only consider things "walls of text" if they reach from the top of my browser to the bottom and aren't formatted much. This effectively filled those requirements before the spoilers were in. Not important though. :P I can write me quite a wall of text. Fanfiction tends to be nothing but that.

Link to post

Share on other sites

Actually Phenom IIs, being faster than FX counterparts clock-to-clock, might be the biggest winners of this multi-thread optimisation if it even happens. They might benefit from multi-core optimisations and they stand very very well price wise (400PLN for Phenom II x6 1045t in Poland, 430PLN for FX-6300, 400PLN for FX-4300 and 350PLN for Phenom II x4 965)

So... If Jesus had the gold, would he buy himself out instead of waiting 3 days for the respawn?

Link to post

Share on other sites

Actually Phenom IIs, being faster than FX counterparts clock-to-clock, might be the biggest winners of this multi-thread optimisation if it even happens. They might benefit from multi-core optimisations and they stand very very well price wise (400PLN for Phenom II x6 1045t in Poland, 430PLN for FX-6300, 400PLN for FX-4300 and 350PLN for Phenom II x4 965)

The funny part is I literally just said this in the post I sent you from a quote XD, Phenoms are going to come back as the underdogs and anyone that bought one and still owns one is going to be laughing as they are probably going to get the longest use out of their processor for gaming in a long time.

Link to post

Share on other sites

Actually Phenom IIs, being faster than FX counterparts clock-to-clock, might be the biggest winners of this multi-thread optimisation if it even happens. They might benefit from multi-core optimisations and they stand very very well price wise (400PLN for Phenom II x6 1045t in Poland, 430PLN for FX-6300, 400PLN for FX-4300 and 350PLN for Phenom II x4 965)

You should probably read my post though I said some other things that might interest you :p

Link to post

Share on other sites

You should probably read my post though I said some other things that might interest you :P

Well, that doesn't make sense to me (the comment about the Phenom II's, just quoting to alert you to my post).

The whole idea of the optimizations is to make better use of AMD's structure as well as to split the work up between multiple cores (which AMD's structure makes use of very well). Phenom II's don't have the same structure that the FX chips have (from my understanding anyway) and so won't benefit from it as much as the FX series will.

At least that's how I understand it. I could be wrong, but I would imagine Phenom II's would benefit as much as Intel's CPUs would. The two series that get the most benefit are FX and APU series. Again, I could be wrong.

Link to post

Share on other sites

Well, that doesn't make sense to me (the comment about the Phenom II's, just quoting to alert you to my post).

The whole idea of the optimizations is to make better use of AMD's structure as well as to split the work up between multiple cores (which AMD's structure makes use of very well). Phenom II's don't have the same structure that the FX chips have (from my understanding anyway) and so won't benefit from it as much as the FX series will.

At least that's how I understand it. I could be wrong, but I would imagine Phenom II's would benefit as much as Intel's CPUs would. The two series that get the most benefit are FX and APU series. Again, I could be wrong.

The optimisation won't just help AMD processors it will also assist Intel processors; there will be optimisation for more cores in general not just bulldozer or piledriver cores ^_^ the actual code will probably have optimisations for bulldozer and piledriver cores but just having the games multi-threaded will help everyone :D

Link to post

Share on other sites

The optimisation won't just help AMD processors it will also assist Intel processors; there will be optimisation for more cores in general not just bulldozer or piledriver cores ^_^ the actual code will probably have optimisations for bulldozer and piledriver cores but just having the games multi-threaded will help everyone :D

I know.

I'm just saying, the FX line of chips are set up to utilize multi-threading better as they share resources more (set up to work in teams of 2) while Phenom II's are like Intels in that the cores are more independent.

I'm just saying, because of this, FX and APU chips will benefit more (since the optimizations are made specifically with APU's in mind due to the consoles) than any other line of chips. Everyone will benefit obviously, but they will benefit the most. So I don't see Phenom II's getting the same performance boost as FX CPU's. Not that they won't be good for gaming, but they will benefit as much as Intel's CPUs will benefit.

I hope that's clear. Order of CPU's that will benefit by how much they will likely benefit:

APUs (optimizations are specifically for them, so I expect things to come that they will specifically utilize)

FX CPUs (Their structure is set up for more efficient multi-core use as compared to older AMD CPUs)

Everything else (Intel and Phenom IIs, as they work similarly in regards to cache memory and such)

Link to post

Share on other sites

I'm just saying, the FX line of chips are set up to utilize multi-threading better as they share resources more (set up to work in teams of 2) while Phenom II's are like Intels in that the cores are more independent.

I'm just saying, because of this, FX and APU chips will benefit more (since the optimizations are made specifically with APU's in mind due to the consoles) than any other line of chips. Everyone will benefit obviously, but they will benefit the most. So I don't see Phenom II's getting the same performance boost as FX CPU's. Not that they won't be good for gaming, but they will benefit as much as Intel's CPUs will benefit.

I hope that's clear. Order of CPU's that will benefit by how much they will likely benefit:

APUs (optimizations are specifically for them, so I expect things to come that they will specifically utilize)

FX CPUs (Their structure is set up for more efficient multi-core use as compared to older AMD CPUs)

Everything else (Intel and Phenom IIs)

That's true that the Phenom and Intel processors are going to see the same performance benefit but here's the thing; FX processors aren't very well optimise for loads on all cores at the same time which is why the MP ratio is about 2/3 of the core count; the Phenom x6s have a 6x MP ratio, the FX 8350 has a 6x MP ratio therefore the magnitude of the performance increase will be exactly the same for both of them; the x6 1100T is going to destroy the 6350 as the 6350 only has an MP ratio of 4x (the same as the i5s and i7s).

The 3930k is probably going to be the king price/performance cpu once the optimisations hit and I'm really hoping the 3910k is real so I can scoop one up and be prepared for the optimisations. With a 6x MP ratio it's pretty much gg.